DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM

SUPERVISED BY THE COURT (ND)

AN ALTERNATIVE TO INPRISONMENT FOR CRIMINAL DRUG ADDICTS

THE NORWEGIAN DRUG COURT MODEL

• Currently a trial project in the

Norwegian cities of Oslo and Bergen

• Startet in 2006

• Inter-agency project

(correctional/health/education/social

welfare – services)

• Inspired by similar correctional

initatives in Scotland, Ireland and

USA

THE NORWEGIAN DTC (ND)

• Alternative to prison Suspended sentence with the condition to attend

the drug treatment and rehabilitation program

supervised by the court.

Probation period: 2-3 years

• For drug abusing offenders, living in

Bergen and Oslo

• The goal is to help the offenders

resocialize, abstain from crime and

become drug free

BACKGROUND

• Inhabitants

- Norway: appr. 5 mill.

- Bergen: appr. 0,3 mill

- Oslo : appr. 0,6 mill

• Substance abuse problem in

Norway

• Mortal ODs: Bergen has been

nr 1 in Europe

• 60 % of the inmates have a

drug-problem

• At least 1/3 are serving

sentences for drug-related

crimes

• Recidivism rates are generally

high

IMPLEMENTATION STEP BY STEP

• Working group with participants from different ministries in the government.

• Mandate: to make a report on whether the Drug Court system should be implemented in the Norwegian legal system or not, and if so: how to implement it. Look to Dublin and Glasgow.

• The report was presented in September 2004, and the conclusion was that the results from other drug-court countries were so good that this was something Norway should try. The report suggested that the court should lead the drug treatment program.

• The report was send out for comments to a lot of different

agencies and also all the courts. A lot of agencies, and

especially the Supreme Court, was very sceptic to a

system where the courts would be so involved in the

serving of a sentence. This would break the legal principle

of the courts independence to the public administration.

• The result of the hearing was that when the bill was

presented to the Parliament (Stortinget) it suggested that

Norway should implement what they called a drug

treatment program supervised/controlled by the court (not

led by).

• This resulted in new statutory provisions in the Criminal

Code, section 53 and 54. The new section also decided

that the Ministry of Justice should give administrative

regulation to the drug-treatment program.

THE NORWEGIAN CRIMINAL

JUSTICE SYSTEM

• indictment

Public Prosecution:

-Police lawyer

-District Attorney

-Attorney General

• conviction

Court

- District court

- Appeal court

- Supreme court

• Prison (high and low security)

• Probation

• DTC-centres

Correctional service

-responsible for carrying out remands in custody and

penal sanctions

Directorate of Norwegian

Correctional service

5 different regions of the

Correctional service

Ministry of Justice.

2 DTC-

centres

43 prisons 17 probation

offices

GOALS

• Rehabilitation

• Crime prevention

• Coordinating assistance measures

DRUGS DRUGS DRUGS DRUGS DRUGS DRUGS

ORGANIZATION

• MINISTERIAL LEVEL

• LOCAL LEVEL – steering-group consisting of the team-members employers (+ Police/prosecution + the District Court)

• TEAM

- A leader/coordinator, employed by the regional level of the

correctional service.

- A social worker employed by the local council.

- A psychologist employed by the local health service.

- A probation officer also employed by the correctional service.

- An educational advisor employed by the county administration.

- A part-time secretary employed by the correctional service

TARGET GROUP

• Social inquiry report

SUITABLE? OR NOT? MEASURES?

PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

• Currently 20 participants in Bergen

• Age 21- 51

• Both men and women

• Different kind of drugs

• Different quantity

• Different duration

• Different backgrounds

• No major violence

• Crime primarily motivated by drug problem

• Regarded as motivated

CHARACTERISTICS

• Drug abusers

• Poor mental health

• Poor physical health

• Lack of education/

lack of work experience

• Poor network

• Unpopular in the

housing market

• Not satisfactory residential

• Inability in living skills

• Criminal minds

THE JUDGES

• In Bergen there are 5 judges (Drug Court judges) in

the district court who follow up the participants in

the program

• - starting with an informal meeting between the

judge and the participant (in the judges office)

- court meeting every time the participant has

qualified to be transferred to the next phase (court

order)

- follow-up meetings (court record)

- court meeting - breach of conditions (new

judgment)

• The judges are not part of the team and there are

no pre-court meetings. (petition from the team to the

court)

PROGRAM CONTENT

INTERNAL • Physical activity and

training

• Assessment and guidance regarding work and education

• Drug coping counselling

• Psychological assessment

• Drug control – urine samples

• Social training

• All kind of meetings and issues

EXTERNAL • Work rehabilitation

• School/education

• Financial counselling

• Treatment in institutions or

at external facilities

• Coordinate efforts with the

Social Welfare Office

• Volunteer organizations

•Etc etc etc etc

BREACHES AND SANCTIONS

• Drug abuse, not keeping appointments, no

progression, new criminal offenses

• The team

- warnings

• Court

- prison (all of the prison sentence or

a part of it)

- extend the probationary

- new conditions

• DTC-leader/coordinator conducts in court

• New crimes – police/public prosecution

MAKING A DIFFERENCE?!

• Control framework and jail sanctions

• Interagency

• Realistic training arena

• Relationship building - close contact

• Quasi-coerced treatment

• Court supervision

• Close monitoring of violations / rapid

response

MONEY TALKS

COST - BENEFIT

• ND-budget: approx. 530 000 euros

• Ca 20 convicted in the program= approx.20 years

= 7300 prison days

• Daily rate in prison: 200 euros =) 1,46 million euros

• + Expenses for police, courts, insurance companies, etc

• Improved quality of life is impossible to measure in

money.

• Appr. 260 ND-convictions = appr. 200 years in prison

•

Production of taxpayers

PUNISHMENT THAT WORKS?!

•WHAT IS

SUCCESS

?

ALWAYS A SECOND CHANCE

THE EVALUATION-REPORT A FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF THE 115 FIRST CONVICTED PARTICIPATING IN

THE PROGRAM

BERGEN/OSLO

STURLA FALCK The Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research (SIRUS) is an

independent research institution, and at the same time an administrative government body under the Ministry of Health and Care

Services

THE PARTICIPANTS

• The 115 sentenced to the ND-program from 2006-2011 were interviewed on three times over a 2 years-period: 115 people at T1, 106 at T2 and 96 at T3.

• They were convicted for drug-related crimes and they all had a severe drug problem.

• They had on average nearly 15 years of mixing drugabuse.

• All were previously convicted for drug related and property crimes, and some also for violence. On average they had 15 previous convictions.

THE BIG ISSUES

•How was the development of those who were sentenced to ND at follow-up after one and two years? Had their situation improved in terms of drug use, crime, mental and physical health, housing, work / school and social network?

•What differences can be registrated for those who completed ND compared to those who dropped out along the way?

COMPLETED AND DROP-OUTS

•Over a third of the people sentenced to ND completed the program.

• The 39 who completed ND, had on average spent two years and two

months in the program.

• Those who dropped out had on average spent one year and two months in the program.

• The average age was 35 years in Oslo and 33 years in Bergen. Both places 15 percent were women.

COMPARED TO ORDINARY SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT

• Usually a minority (20-30 percent) of people with substance abuse problems completes a treatment program

•COMPARED TO DRUG COURTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ND-CONVICTED

• All of the areas surveyed, show a positive trend:

Time in controlled environment, drug abuse, crime, psycho-somatic health, education, work and social relationships.

• Those who completed came out better than those who dropped out along the way, but these also showed a positive development.

• Self-reported crime (as in new prosecutions and convictions), show a decrease.

• There was a positive development with reduced mental and somatic disorders, both for those who completed and those who dropped out.

• Social conditions and housing situation appears somewhat improved.

• Of those who went to school or work - 80 percent completed

• Relapse after completing ND is difficult to say something about - yet.

LIMITATIONS

• Number of respondents was lower than anticipated. This reduces the possibility of drawing statistically generalized conclusions.

• The research design was somewhat unfortunate and not adjusted to the changed assumptions or specifically aligned to ND-model.

• Can not say anything about what works / does not work in relation to various agencies involved in the team.

OVERALL IMPRESSION

• Both those who completed and those who dropped out showed a positive trend, albeit somewhat weaker.

• The results from the ND-program seems better than the alternative, imprisonment.

• ND has shown that alternative reactions are possible even for this group. Imprisonment for recidivists convicted for drug related crimes have 85 percent risk of relapse. This shows the importance of trying alternative sanctions.

• The percentage completed was positive compared with Drug Court in other countries and drug users in treatment.

• Those who went through the program and the measures in ND got their opportunities for further integration into society strengthened.

WHERE DOES THIS LEAD US?

COMPLAINING

DOESN’T HELP THE ND-CENTRES

ACROSS THE

COUNTRY ARE

OVERFLOWING

THE FUTURE?